I doubt she is mentally ill. If she was, why didn't she plead so?
She could be a sociopath. Since only 1% of cases in women are even treated, let alone detected, it's quite easy that no one would even know.
What, should the jury be psychically aware of what happened? Or should they merely look at the person and decide guilt? What do you suggest, if explanation is so unsavory?
You know Xzeno, I never once said I thought she was guilty, I simply gave reasons as to why they didn't find her guilty. Explainations aren't unsavory, in fact, they are required. It's because things are not explained that we either let the guilty walk free, or the innocent to be condemned.
People just want someone to blame. I'm just glad the jury declared her not guilty. It's trials like these -- a not guilty verdict against the majority (and stupid) public opinion -- that restore my faith in the legal system.
Now, I agree that people are out for someone to blame, however, it's cases like these that make me question the legal system. In fact, regardless of the verdict I question the legal system. Especially the jury.
You see, I have no faith in twelve people, strangers I do not know. I have no faith in them to come to a conclusive decision on the guilt of another person. You see, the law states that you are allowed to be "tried by your peers". What does that even mean? My peers? Certainly not twelve people selected out of over a hundred or so.
Think about this, let us say, for instance, I am to go to trial for murder. Now, the law says that I shall be tried by my peers, but I hardly consider a poverty struck 50 year old woman my peer, nor do I consider an 80 old middle income my peer. Why? Well I am a 20 year old white male, average build and above average intelligence. When faced with adversity I either stone face everything or break down. Either of which responses may seem condemning. But, also, we must consider my age, my race and my gender. People are far more likely to condemn a young man than they are a women. It's true. The only thing I have going my way? I'm white. Even my intelligence is used against me, because a defense would point out just how smart I actually am.
So, who are my peers? Well I would consider any one of any nationality, so long as they are above average intelligence, able to comprehend legal jargon, and range from 20-30 years of age. I would also prefer middle to lower middle income, because such people would understand my life far better than a man of 60 who has been poor, only to strike rich.
You see, the problem isn't the verdict, it's the jury. I know the process for which the pick a jury is extensive, but they simply use guess work, and limitted methods of profiling people. This is not enough. A jury must be educated enough to understand a case. Now, you may say that could change the verdict, but that's the point. It could, but that doesn't mean it will. Often times juries are not as educated as we would like them to be and that can lead to disasterous results.
Do I think Casey Anthony is guilty? I'm undecided. There is evidence there to convict of some form of manslaughter, however, there is not enough evidence for first degree murder.
